Sorry, Shankar, but billionaires, however well-meaning some of them might be, are still sucking wealth out of the economy for their private benefit. Ms Scott happens to see her private benefit as supporting non-profit organizations that have good social missions. Good for her, but this is whitewashing all those known and unknown billionaires who do not share her values. I'd be more impressed if she gave all that money to reduce the federal deficit, support a more progressive income tax and leave the spending on social services to the Congress, and state and local governments. Allowing billionaires to define our values is no path forward for a supposed democracy, no matter the few well-meaning exceptions that might be out there. Highlighting her goodness, simply makes her the exception that proves the rule.
To me, this is a case of two things being true, most notably:
We don’t want billionaires to be the ones defining our values through their philanthropy (especially since much of their philanthropy isn’t).
Mackenzie Scott is still deserving of being highlighted and praised, especially for her unorthodox way of giving (without reporting requirements, strings, etc.). I’m mostly disappointed because her arts funding seems to have dropped off.
My problem here is this: If we praise Mackenzie Scott, are we not implicitly endorsing the values of billionaires? If it takes twenty or fifty billionaires to yield us on Ms Scott, are we really benefiting? I'd say, no.
I say no, too. I still think she deserves our praise, but not to be held up as an example of a system that’s working. Or maybe she doesn’t deserve our praise. After all, we should expect that people won’t act like greedy garbage, not be surprised when they don’t. Still, positive reinforcement is a powerful thing, and we have far too many people getting positive reinforcement for anti-social behavior these days. So, I suppose I stand by praising her for being a decent billionaire.
Awesome article. Thanks for sharing.
Sorry, Shankar, but billionaires, however well-meaning some of them might be, are still sucking wealth out of the economy for their private benefit. Ms Scott happens to see her private benefit as supporting non-profit organizations that have good social missions. Good for her, but this is whitewashing all those known and unknown billionaires who do not share her values. I'd be more impressed if she gave all that money to reduce the federal deficit, support a more progressive income tax and leave the spending on social services to the Congress, and state and local governments. Allowing billionaires to define our values is no path forward for a supposed democracy, no matter the few well-meaning exceptions that might be out there. Highlighting her goodness, simply makes her the exception that proves the rule.
To me, this is a case of two things being true, most notably:
We don’t want billionaires to be the ones defining our values through their philanthropy (especially since much of their philanthropy isn’t).
Mackenzie Scott is still deserving of being highlighted and praised, especially for her unorthodox way of giving (without reporting requirements, strings, etc.). I’m mostly disappointed because her arts funding seems to have dropped off.
My problem here is this: If we praise Mackenzie Scott, are we not implicitly endorsing the values of billionaires? If it takes twenty or fifty billionaires to yield us on Ms Scott, are we really benefiting? I'd say, no.
I say no, too. I still think she deserves our praise, but not to be held up as an example of a system that’s working. Or maybe she doesn’t deserve our praise. After all, we should expect that people won’t act like greedy garbage, not be surprised when they don’t. Still, positive reinforcement is a powerful thing, and we have far too many people getting positive reinforcement for anti-social behavior these days. So, I suppose I stand by praising her for being a decent billionaire.
We should have zero billionaires, though.
You have to love Mackenzie Scott. What a heart.